Reasons influencing the preferences of prospective patients and orthodontists for different orthodontic appliances
2
조회
0
다운로드
2
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Objective: To evaluate the reasons influencing the preferences for a certain type of orthodontic appliance over another among prospective patients (PP) and orthodontists. Methods: A total of 49 PP and 51 orthodontists were asked about their preferences for the following appliances: clear aligners (CA), lingual metallic brackets (LMB), polycrystalline and monocrystalline ceramic brackets, and buccal metallic brackets (BMB). The participants rated the importance of 17 potential reasons that would explain their choices. The reasons that contributed most to these preferences were identified. Non-parametric tests (Fisher’s exact, χ2 and Mann–Whitney tests) and multivariate analyses (regression and discriminant analysis) were used to assess the data (α = 0.05). Results: CA and BMB were the most chosen appliances by PP and orthodontists, respectively. LMB was the most rejected option among both groups of participants (p < 0.001). Rates of the importance of pain/discomfort, smile esthetics, finishing details, and feeding/speech impairment showed the highest differences between PP and orthodontists (p < 0.0005). Discriminant analyses showed that individuals who considered treatment time and smile esthetics as more important were more likely to prefer CA, while those who prioritized finishing details and cost were more likely to choose BMB (p < 0.05). Conclusions: Reasons related to comfort and quality of life during use were considered as more important by PP, while those related to the results and clinical performance of the appliances were considered as more relevant by orthodontists.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the reasons influencing the preferences for a certain type of orthodontic appliance over another among prospective patients (PP) and orthodontists. Methods: A total of 49 PP and 51 orthodontists were asked about their preferences for the following appliances: clear aligners (CA), lingual metallic brackets (LMB), polycrystalline and monocrystalline ceramic brackets, and buccal metallic brackets (BMB). The participants rated the importance of 17 potential reasons that would explain their choices. The reasons that contributed most to these preferences were identified. Non-parametric tests (Fisher’s exact, χ2 and Mann–Whitney tests) and multivariate analyses (regression and discriminant analysis) were used to assess the data (α = 0.05). Results: CA and BMB were the most chosen appliances by PP and orthodontists, respectively. LMB was the most rejected option among both groups of participants (p < 0.001). Rates of the importance of pain/discomfort, smile esthetics, finishing details, and feeding/speech impairment showed the highest differences between PP and orthodontists (p < 0.0005). Discriminant analyses showed that individuals who considered treatment time and smile esthetics as more important were more likely to prefer CA, while those who prioritized finishing details and cost were more likely to choose BMB (p < 0.05). Conclusions: Reasons related to comfort and quality of life during use were considered as more important by PP, while those related to the results and clinical performance of the appliances were considered as more relevant by orthodontists.
참고문헌 (30)
- Rosvall MD, "Attractiveness, acceptability, and value of orthodontic appliances", Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 135, pp.276~ (2009)[DOI]
- White DW, "Discomfort associated with Invisalign and traditional brackets : a randomized, prospective trial", Angle Orthod, 87, pp.801~808 (2017)
- Papadimitriou A, "Clinical effectiveness of Invisalign® orthodontic treatment : a systematic review", Prog Orthod, 19, pp.37~ (2018)
- Papageorgiou SN, "labial fixed orthodontic appliances : systematic review and meta-analysis of treatment effects", Eur J Oral Sci, 124, pp.105~118 (2016)
- Reicheneder CA, "Frictional properties of aesthetic brackets", Eur J Orthod, 29, pp.359~365 (2007)
- Shalish M, "Adult patients' adjustability to orthodontic appliances. Part I: a comparison between Labial, Lingual, and InvisalignTM", Eur J Orthod, 34, pp.724~730 (2012)
- Ata-Ali F, "Adverse effects of lingual and buccal orthodontic techniques : a systematic review and meta-analysis", Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 149, pp.820~829 (2016)
- Fang X, "Root resorption in orthodontic treatment with clear aligners : a systematic review and meta-analysis", Orthod Craniofac Res, 22, pp.259~269 (2019)
- Jiang Q, "Periodontal health during orthodontic treatment with clear aligners and fixed appliances : a metaanalysis", J Am Dent Assoc, 149, pp.712~720.e12 (2018)
- Leles CR, "A sociodental approach in prosthodontic treatment decision making", J Appl Oral Sci, 12, pp.127~132 (2004)
- Broder HL, "Issues in decision making: should I have orthognathic surgery?", Semin Orthod, 6, pp.249~258 (2000)
- Walton DK, "Orthodontic appliance preferences of children and adolescents", Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 138, pp.698.e1~12 (2010)
- McKiernan EX, "Psychological profiles and motives of adults seeking orthodontic treatment", Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg, 7, pp.187~198 (1992)
- de Souza RA, "Expectations of orthodontic treatment in adults : the conduct in orthodontist", patient relationship, 2013, pp.18, 88~94
- Leles CR, "Discriminant analysis of patients' reasons for choosing or refusing treatments for partial edentulism", J Oral Rehabil, 36, pp.909~915 (2009)
- "Critério de classificação econômica Brasil" (2018)[URL]
- Leles CR, "Factors influencing edentulous patients' preferences for prosthodontic treatment", J Oral Rehabil, 38, pp.333~339 (2011)
- Ziuchkovski JP, "Assessment of perceived orthodontic appliance attractiveness", Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop (2008)
- Fonseca LM, "Impact of metal and ceramic fixed orthodontic appliances on judgments of beauty and other facerelated attributes", Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 145, pp.203~206 (2014)
- Robertson L, "Effectiveness of clear aligner therapy for orthodontic treatment : a systematic review", Orthod Craniofac Res, 23, pp.133~142 (2020)
- Kuncio D, "Invisalign and traditional orthodontic treatment postretention outcomes compared using the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system", Angle Orthod, 77, pp.864~869 (2007)
- Cardoso PC, "Pain level between clear aligners and fixed appliances : a systematic review", Prog Orthod, 21, pp.3~ (2020)
- Mistakidis I, "Clinical outcomes of lingual orthodontic treatment : a systematic review", Eur J Orthod, 38, pp.447~458 (2016)
- Long H, "Comparison of adverse effects between lingual and labial orthodontic treatment", Angle Orthod, 83, pp.1066~1073 (2013)
- Chen J, "Speech and orthodontic appliances : a systematic literature review", Eur J Orthod, 40, pp.29~36 (2018)
- Miller KB, "A comparison of treatment impacts between Invisalign aligner and fixed appliance therapy during the first week of treatment", Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 131, pp.302.e1~9 (2007)
- Montgomery AA, "How do patients' treatment preferences compare with those of clinicians?", Qual Health Care, 10 Suppl 1(Suppl 1), pp.39~43 (2001)
- Cai Y, "Agreement of young adults and orthodontists on dental aesthetics & influencing factors of self-perceived aesthetics", BMC Oral Health, 18, pp.113~ (2018)
- Riolo C, "Lingual orthodontics : adding value to the care we offer our patients", Semin Orthod, 24, pp.P269~70 (2018)
- Buschang PH, "Comparative time efficiency of aligner therapy and conventional edgewise braces", Angle Orthod, 84, pp.391~396 (2014)